INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2001
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
- AND -
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
Chairman: Ms Jenkinson
Employer Member: Mr Pierce
Worker Member: Mr Somers
1. Redundancy terms.
2. The Union has submitted a claim for enhanced redundancy payment for three of its members. It is seeking 3.5 weeks' pay per year of service plus statutory entitlements. Two of the workers have 4 years' service, while the third worker has twenty-seven years' service.
The Company states that it had no option but to make the workers redundant following the closure of one part of the Company. It claims that it has made a generous offer to the workers concerned of 2.5 weeks' pay per year of service inclusive of statutory entitlements. The Company is not prepared to increase this offer.
As no agreement was possible between the parties, the dispute was referred to the Labour Relations Commission. A conciliation conference was held on the 17th of July, 2001, but no final agreement was reached. The dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 19th of July, 2001 in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. The Court investigated the dispute on the 30th of August, 2001.
3. 1. The claim for 3.5 weeks' pay plus statutory entitlements is fair and reasonable and is the average for the textile industry.
2. The Company is not closing down but is streamlining its business. The workers concerned have contributed to the success of the Company and this must be recognised by management.
3. The Company is not saying that it cannot afford to pay this claim only that it will not.
4. There is no guarantee of future employment for these workers. The severance package must reflect this.
4. 1. The Company had no option but to make the workers redundant in order to ensure its viability and to safeguard the jobs of the existing employees.
2. The Company has put forward a generous redundancy package to the workers concerned which should be accepted.
3. The Company gave 2 of the workers eight weeks' notice instead of the required two weeks. This gesture by the Company was to allow the workers extra time to look for alternative employment.
4. The Company's offer of £13, 000 (16,506.60 Euro) to the employee with 27 years' service and £2,500 (3,174.35 Euro) to each of the other 2 employees was its final offer.
5. The Company's final offer to the workers is based on past redundancy terms for the textile industry.
The Court has taken into consideration both the written and oral submissions made by the parties. The Court recommends that the Company's offer of a redundancy payment for the employee with 27 years' service should be increased to £16,000 (20,315.81 Euro). The Company's offer of £2,500(3,174.35 Euro) to those employees with four years' service should be accepted. The Court recommends that these payments should be deemed to include the statutory redundancy entitlements and should be accepted in full and final settlement of all claims against the Company.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
5th September, 2001______________________
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Larry Wisely, Court Secretary.